Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 28

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)

28 November 2006

Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet

Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

I have speciefied my reasons here ([1]) During the AFD, the authors of the article were AFAIK not notified, and the article was deleted based on an uncritical reading of WP:BIO. Notablity for astrologers or religious leaders like PNB is not easy to establish. WP:BIO says even in the introduction: "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious)." "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." PNB is clearly a published author, and her notability must be judged by comparing her to other astrologers or religious leaders, where I think she is notable, on grounds of her published books and writings, and her role as a religious leader. A. G. E. Blake for example in The Intelligent Enneagram says: "An important and useful text, which makes reference to the enneagram in this context, is The Gnostic Circle, by Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet." She was also criticized by authors unrelated to her or to her group like Rajaram: [2] And Jenkins has also written about her: The author Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet, and her book The Gnostic Circle (published in 1978) has also been a keystone piece of information which allowed Jenkins to futher confirm aspects of the galactic center as written into ancient Vedic philosophies. Jenkins states that The Gnostic Circle is "a deep, intuitive, and complex work." The book, according to Jenkins, contains an almost matter-of-fact description of the evolutionary implications of our periodic alignments with the Galactic Center.[3] There are probably many other references to her or to her followers, including criticisms by Aurobindo groups. (And I'm not at all an expert on Patricia or even on Astrology, but have still heard about her.) Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored. The deletion of this article was incidentally even noteworthy enough to be mentioned on kheper.net. --Mallarme 17:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Mallarme 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: notifying the creator of an article of an AfD is common courtesy, but not doing so does not invalidate the AfD. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I fixed the AfD link above to the actual one, which also links to various other related AfD's. I don't see anything above that would convince me to change my call, but I abstain since I closed it. (Yay! First contested AfD closure!) ~ trialsanderrors 03:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). I can find no process problems with the deletion discussion. The core problem with the article was the lack of independent, reliable sources on which to base the article or to demonstrate notability. None of the new sources cited above reliably address that concern. Rossami (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure I see no evidence of abuse of discretion by the closer. None of the new sources mentioned above appear at first glance to be sources that are both independent and reliable. GRBerry 21:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion AFD and closure was within policy. Sarah Ewart 07:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion I believe I created the Patizia Norelli-Bachelet page, or at least I added much of its content. I was not alerted to its fate (or to the fate of the other articles I created related to her yoga, books, community), and therefore was not allowed any time to present more facts, links that would justify the PNB page and the ones related to it. I think everybody jumped the gun on this one. Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet should be counted as a notable figure and author whether one regards her work/claims highly or not. How many people have claimed to be the third element of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother's Supramental Descent/Yoga? None, other than her. This claim, by itself makes at least a bio page for her justified. How many other disciples/writers on the subject of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, such as Satprem, are allowed wiki pages about themselves and their organizations. Many. None of that is considered 'vanity spaming'. Norelli-Bachelets's work on the Matrimandir is also truely noteworthy and is historically relevant, even if it is not the majority opinion ( http://matacom.com/chr1/ChronicleOne_1.html). Hasn't it been the case a few times in human history, where majority opinion does not necessariy represent the full truth of a situation? I hope other neutral editors can review the many knee jerk reactions to the PNB related content and explore more facts about Ms. Norelli-Bachelet's actual relevance in world-affairs. Here is a review of one of her books by a Kashmiri Pundit, Dalip Langoo: http://www.milchar.com/Apr2004/14.html - sablerlotus (3 Dec 2006)
  • So, wait, now, someone's CLAIMS alone make them notable? Also, not notifying the author does not invalidate the AfD, since ANYONE should be able to find the information. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I will add this: When I created the PNB pages (based on my own study of her work), I used other wiki pages as models, I made links that I knew of, that were connected to the topic of the pages, hoping others would add to the pages over some period of time, as they found the pages. I assumed that most people create pages/content based on their area of study or expertise, who else would start wiki pages other than those very familiar with the subject matter, and my subject matter, has been Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet, Sri Aurobindo, etc. I thought creating new content was an acceptable practice that was useful to readers interested in the subject of the page. I did not realize that this was known as "Vanity Spamming". I noticed a page about the Integral Yoga group Auroconf (an group which is critical of PNB). I thought, that the PNB-friendly Integral Yoga group, Aeon Group, should have a page as well. So I created it. I also saw that many books, fiction and non-fiction included, have pages on wiki, so I thought that the books The Gnostic Circle, The New Way, Vol 1&2, and The New Way Vol 3, and The Magical Carousel (all recorded in the Library of Congress and one of which is translated into different languages [4]) all would be accepted as pages. I saw that rubrics such as Spiral dynamics (also a book) had pages so I decided to create one for the rubric 'The New Way'. I did not create these wiki pages as the loathesome mass spam attack that some want to portray. I did it because these books, and ideas exist and are read by people all over the world. If I had been alerted as to my editing errors sooner, I think this whole discussion would have been avoided, because I could have removed the multiple links and let the pages grow. As far as there being no other editors to some of the pages other than me, HOW LONG WERE THOSE PARTICULAR PAGES ALLOWED TO EXIST? Most of them of them didn't last more than a couple of weeks. That was not enough time for multiple editors to contribute the needed additional content, which would have happened in the course of time. I do apologize that, as an inexperience user, that I did not avoid the multiple linking. I am certainly learning about what is acceptable as a contributor and what is not now. BUT my errors, an apparently grievous mistake, should not prevent editors to OVERTURN the mass deletion of this page and the other pages, such as the pages regarding her books, some of which were published by presses at the Sri Aurobindo Ashram, and allow the pages to be rebuilt by the wiki community in a Neutral, NPOV fashion. There are objective cases that Norelli-Bachelet is a substantial author that other's draw on. One example: In January 1991, excerpts and diagrams from Norelli-Bachelet's 'The New Way, Volume 1 &2' where presented in a thesis by Auroville Architect, Mona Doctor in 'Auroville Today', Issue #25. Another example is from the 'Ancient Suns' website which draws of PNB's book 'The Hidden Manna': [5]. Amarkov and other editors/administrators that have so far supported deletion, what do you think about the matter raised by Patricia R Heidt below, about PNB's collected work being kept in the Sri Aurobindo Archives? That does not seem to be dismissable as a 'claim', this seems to be a verifiable fact/reality, and evidence enough that she is a significant author ... significant enough for the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Archives to dedicate a collection in her name. Please forgive the error I made as an novice wiki user and allow the page to either be re-published, or allow it to be recreated by the wiki community - saberlotus 5 December 2006

OVERTURN DELETION: Ms. Norelli-Bachelet is a substantial author on the relationship between the mystical doctrine of the Vedas and the Integral/Supramental yoga. Her teachings regarding the use of the Tropical Zodiac as the demarcation for the celebration of annual festivals has recently been recognized by Pundits in South India. Mr. Sai Srinivasan, Administration Dept., Gov of Tamil Nadu (Ex Officer, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments) gives permission to reproduce a recent email to her: 'Dear Madam, I am happy to announce that the transit of Jupiter at 10.13 AM IST on 24.11.06 has been celebrated in 5 temples in traditional manner... It is a milestone in the history of Hindu temples because the correct date and time had been adopted to celebrate this cosmic event as per your directions... We have decided to extend this celebration of Jupiter transit to more temples in the future... (http://group.hgroup.yahoo.com/group/movmentfortherestorationofvedicwisdom/message/12). In addition to Mr. Srinivasan's nontrivial third party account of her significance, there are letters on file at Aeon Centre of Cosmology which show that Ms. Norelli-Bachelet has been close to some of the Trustees of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram. Many of her books were printed at the Sri Aurobindo Ashram press. Her books and collection of articles are in their Archives for all to puruse as well. To claim that nobody in the Ashram takes her seriously (as has Wiki editor Alan Kazlev in his assessment of her) is false. I am a student of Ms. Norelli-Bachelet; however please be neutral and realize that this does not make any of these statements false. All are verifiable. I consider her yogic research to be entirely consistent with what is permissible in such areas as philosophy, philology and/or comparative religions, for example -- and not a field for personal promotion. Patricia R Heidt PhD 5 DECEMBER 2006

• • Well, based on the fact that I see no grounds for your claims, yes, the fact that you admit to have a conflict of interest kinda makes me doubt it more. WP:COI articles rarely avoid deletion, but even more rarely is their overturning in deletion review. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion 'I am a follower of Sri Aurobindo and The Mother and in 1988 I found the book "The New Way 1&2 ". At that time I was contributing money to the Matrimandir (The Mother's Temple built in Auroville) because of my love for The Mother and Her Vision. The book opened my eyes to the changes made to the Mother's original blueprint plans while building the Matrimandir. From the plain and seemingly verifiable facts which were given in the book I had to consider that the devotees of The Mother were mislead by the builders. It then occured to me that I had given money not to The Mother's sacred plan but to the egos of the builders. Which made me sad. In my opinion, still many devotees are mislead by the builders and I hope that all who reasearch the subject on Wikipedia will at least learn of the changes of the Matrimandir discribed in the book "The New Way 1&2" or by information of the Matrimandir Action Committee on the internet (www.matacom.com). But it seems that this information is considered 'vanity spam' by many of you 'Neutral' editors. It is unjust for 'Neutral' editors to blindly uphold the false assumption that all devotees of The Mother and Sri Aurobindo react to PNB negatively and judge that she is a 'minor teacher'. It is otherwise. In my experience, all people who learn about her books are happy to get the right information instead of the false information the Matrimandir builders spread out to get money for the construction. None of the critics of "The New Way 1&2" or "The Chronicles of the Inner Chamber" has been able to prove any factual error in Ms. Norelli Bachelet's research into the matter. They just criticise her, but don't seem to be able to refute the facts that she brings reader's to consider. Hanneke, Creil, The Netherlands
  • Once again, WP:COI votes based on vague WP:MYRELIGIONOWNS criteria are entirely unpersuasive. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion Considering that her work is a recognized influence in the highest ranks of temple administration in India, this author must be considered notable. She is the only Cosmologist who has formulated an Indocentric Cosmology, and her publications on Vedic Wisdom are having a very real impact on contemporary India since they have led to an adjustment of the timings for celebrations in Hindu temples. Hence non-notability does not apply. The page should be reinstated, and the relevant information should be added to the page. --Tammobuss 10:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion I’m student of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet. I like you to overturn the deletion for reasons you mention as why her Wiki is not set according Wiki rules. I present you a few of the many links that proof she is appreciated by different sources. I got links of websites, magazines and papers. They put her work on their site or review them. As in the papers it potentially reach an audience of millions of people. As you look more deeply and accurate it is not about Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet but her writings and knowledge in there they preview. So in this light how can someone out there judge her work and the knowledge without the proper understanding of the matter, render unimportant and ready for deletion? (Fred van Manen, Arnhem, The Netherlands, 6 December 2006)

http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/vedicculture.htm http://www.indiastar.com/norelli-bachelet.html http://www.kheper.net/topics/gurus/Patrizia_Norelli-Bachelet.html http://www.amazon.com/magical-carousel-zodiacal-odyssey/dp/B0006E2RQU http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/8/prweb272955.htm http://www.answers.com/topic/aeon-center-for-cosmology http://www.hinduonnet.com/br/2004/01/20/stories/2004012000471700.htm http://www.powerattunements.com/article39.html http://www.sokrates-digital.de/php_skripte/detailseite.php?ID=AQ+219205&PHPSESSID=f0a5b0c08d0904e976fe5726df41d17d http://www.sciforums.com/Vedas-An-Overview-t-13485.html http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/op/2002/07/09/stories/2002070900110200.htm http://www.zoominfo.com/search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=38974618 http://www.milchar.com/Apr2004/14.html http://www.kerala.com/wiki-Veda http://www.theancientsuns.com/MayanCalendar.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.93.223.217 (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Overturn Deletion: The article on Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet deserves to be re-instated. Aside from the article NOT suffering, in my view, from either Vanity or NPOV, neither is considered a strong reason for deletion (as per the WIKI deletion criteria). Others have provided evidence that Ms. Norelli-Bachelet DOES have objectively verifiable credentials. In addition to those already mentioned, her article ‘Cosmology in the Rig Veda’ was published in The Hindu, July 9, 2002 http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/op/2002/07/09/stories/2002070900110200.htm. Her article ‘In Defence of the Ancient Culture’ was published in The Hindu, November 7, 2000 http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2000/11/07/13hdline.htm.

I would like to know what, exactly, in the WIKI article was considered either “unverifiable”, or “original research”?

Comment: The controversy and passions created by a particular author's works should not be criteria for whether a description OF that work appears on the WIKI pages. If the REACTIONS to a particular person's work/creations become the standard by which NPOV status is determined, then, in his day, even the work of someone as important as Gallileo would not have been mentioned in WIKI! Would the fact that the Church Fathers, the very 'powers that be' at the time, found him to be a heretic, have rendered discussion of him ‘inappropriate’ (i.e. WP:BIO) for inclusion in WIKI? One must not confuse the ACCEPTANCE, UNDERSTANDING, or even TOLERANCE of someone's works with the objective acknowledgement of that work's place in the vast scheme of things. Wiki editors and administrators should allow an objective, NPOV, Wikipedia page for Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet -- the author-in-question. From what I have read on this page (and the links provided) regarding her published works, she has a significant involvement in Indian affairs, discussions regarding the Vedas, and a strong impact on the Integral Yoga community (whether one considers it “positive” or “negative”). Jan Shapiro, USA

• Comment. Is anyone but me getting an "invasion of the meatpuppets" feeling? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The impression is that you are ignoring/dismissing/not addressing the considerable objections to this BIO page getting deleted. The links provided show that she is a notable figure. Deal with the facts presented, rather than this 'meatpuppets' diversion. KostaG.

Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE

Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

Two thirds of the users voted to merge or keep the page. I cannot see why the adminstrator concerned went ahead and deleted it when only one third of the users had voted to delete it. Dutugemunu 07:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted. Another user redirected it to the wrong article. I've fixed the redirect, so this can be speedily closed. --Coredesat 07:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Core, it was deleted. The page deleted at AFD (rife with sockpuppetry trying to keep their nice propaganda) was Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE (note the "the" and the capital "A"). Multiple pages were created. This is a fork of that page, that instead of being a list of 135 dates with an external link for each one is just 60 or so of them. Proto::type 09:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

For clarity - variants of the deleted page were:

Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE

Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE

Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE

Notable attacks by the LTTE

Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE

I've deleted all of them, via the above mentioned AFD. As this AFD closure will probably be reviewed, because it's a politicised issue, note that the AFD had 5 deletes, 5 keeps (4 disregarded as being blatant socks). The deletes were decent. The 5 keeps didn't even try and use Wikipedia policy to show why the article should be deleted, instead embarking on personal attacks on those voting 'delete' (and everyone's favourite "bad faith on part of nom"), and at least 1 is a known sockpupetteer, and the others only contribute to this and similar articles (usually getting warned about POV on a near-daily basis). Proto::type 10:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment the deletes were decent ?? proto, two of them were caught for sockpuppeting and you call them decent ??!! And 5 keeps didn't try to use wiki policy ?? Did you even bother to read our comments ?? This article had nearly 200 references, and satisfied every wiki policy.But did you read what the deletion side said ?? For me it was nothing more than a logical fallacy.What they say is "since some sources come from the GOSL this cant be true"!! ,inst this a WP:POV ? And you, without giving a valid reason,had deleted every thing ! even the ones which had non-government sources !! why ??--Iwazaki 17:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

For details of sockpuppets by users who voted to delete in the AFD see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Elalan

Comment. As for the Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE page , I saw only one user making personal attacks on the others. Are you saying all the merge and keep votes are sockpuppets. If I remember correctly at least 2 of the delete votes were accused of sockpuppeting. If I remember there were 4 merge votes, 5 deletes and 5 keeps. So the deletes were in the minority anyhow Dutugemunu 10:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also Proto , you have used the word propaganda to describe the page. Do you mean the page is composed of lies Dutugemunu 11:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion: This article does not aim to preserve NPOV or simply anything at all. All the incidents it actually had were only some 100 odd external links and just date, time and external link. This is completely POV and is based on a no of Govt. of Sri Lanka citations, when it is one of the parties involved in this racial conflict. This is like looking up the Sudanese archives to write in an NPOV fashion against the Darfur crisis. This article conforms to advertising the govt of Sri Lanka as a noble, humanitarian agency when it has thousands of gross human rights violation cases against it, and this article is only being used to establish GoSL's supremacy by defaming the other party involved in the conflict. My final opinion, as an editor, who conforms to WP:5P would be to delete this article to bring back NPOV to the coverage of Sri Lanka in Wikipedia, as well as this specific article. Proto, my thanks to you for taking into account the credibility of the actual votes - sockpuppets, anon IPs and everything. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 10:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion: The article that was deleted broke every rule in wikipedia, including WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. It survived this long due to revert warring and move warring by a determined few sri lankan government supporting POV warriors. Elalan 00:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

For details of sockpuppets by users who voted to delete in the AFD see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Elalan

Trinncomanb did the honorable thing and recused himself of his votes until the case is settled. Calling myself or Trincomanb or sockpuppet is a blatant contravention of WP:AGF. Elalan 00:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. But two thirds voted either to merge the page or keep it. The deletes were in the minority. Are you saying all the merge and keep votes are sockpuppets. If I remember correctly at least 2 of the delete votes were accused of sockpuppeting. I dont think we shoudl delete pages simply because someone posts an AFD Dutugemunu 10:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That's patently untrue - I'm saying most of the 'keep' votes were either sockpuppetry or of dubious worth. There were, in total, 9 keep votes, of which 4 were definitely discounted, and 2 more were from sockpuppeteers or POV warriors. So you could say that three quarters voted to either delete the page or merge it. And as there was nothing other than external links to merge, the difference between merge and delete was minimal. Proto::type 13:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

For details of sockpuppets by users who voted to delete in the AFD see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Elalan

The users who voted for merge asked for the Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE to be merged with Notable attacks by the LTTE. Since you deleted both pages , you have actually gone against the merge and the keep votes combined. Certainly the merge voters didnt expect this page and the page they voted to merge it with ,both to be deleted. They expected the information to be merged , not to be entirely deleted. I would dispute the clain that these are no more than external links. Many Wikipedia users spent their time on creating these pages. Its not fair to just dismiss the work they have put into it. If content is lacking , you can wait for other users to add to it, not just delete the entire information Dutugemunu 13:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn--Iwazaki 17:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC) proto, you had made a few errors in judgement and counting. First, please go through the AFD again. Read all the points made by ME,iwazaki and others who voted to keep this. And please show me ,which is POV ?? And then go through those who voted to delete it(ONLY 4), and see The real POV .I think this may will be the most "biased" decision ever taken in wikipedia. The article is WP:NPOV WP:RS,And i have several times asked those who opposed this to single out any "unreliable incident" or "incidents which they think did not carry out by the LTTE",and didn't get a single reply. Also in the process I gave a link ,which clearly shows That the LTTE has carried out over 150 suicide missions during 1980-2000 !Surprisingly you have not seen any of this !! And for a little tirade directed at me, Please read the AFD and realise who started the "Personal Attacks" on the first place.finally, there were 9 keeps and 3 merges, only 4 deletes..None of those who stand for deletions made any "logical argument at all"!! if you have any problem with the citations, though we have given nearly 200 of it, I believe I'm now in a position to give you extra sources too.All the incidents in the article, did occur and did carried out by the LTTE. And none of the source is disputed.so I request you to reconsider your decision. --Iwazaki 16:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment you are quite certain that,most of the keep votes are sockpuppets , so could you please elaborate who are those users ? While using this as one of the excuses to delete this article, you have failed to realize that the only people found for sockpuppeting were the ones who voted "To delete" this. !!--Iwazaki 17:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Iwazaki, even if nothing's proved, the fact is that all the keep votes were by people so intimately connected to the issue (not that some of the deletes weren't as well), that they were all emotional keeps, not reasoned ones. The comments you made all through the AfD, including links to graphic images of dead or injured Sinhalese just goes to show how much this is an emotional issue for you. Now, you keep saying we haven't shown which claims are not true, and you think this shows that those for delete are the ones who aren't making reasoned votes, but the fact of the matter really is, no matter how hard you deny it, that a letter written by the Government of Sri Lanka is not a neutral source. Proto has also noted above that there's really nothing reliable to merge to the other article, so the merge votes have to be considered some kind of weak delete. Think of the delete as having been a merge--all mergable material was merged. This article clearly should have been deleted. It goes against WP:RS, WP:POV, and probably half a dozen other Wikipedia policies. The problem is that AfD is a very bad place for such a decision to be made, since it invites decisions to be made on the basis of who can scream louder; Tamils or Sinhalese. Proto made the right decision. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Isn't it patronizing to say that the people who voted for merge didnt know the difference between a merge and a delete Dutugemunu 20:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

First, Government of Sri Lanka is not the only source. There are many references from different sources for these articles. For the incidents sourced from Gov. Sri anka do you deny these incidents happened. The US listed the casualties from September 11. According to your logic, these people didnt die but the US is making them up because it is the victim of these attacks. I suppose you are waiting for Al Quada and US to jointly agree on what happened. Please dont confuse the functions of a democratically elected government. Any comparisons with Sudan are not acceptable because Sudan is not a democracy and it is regarded as an international pariah state while Sri Lanka is a democracy and a legitimate member of the international community . Dutugemunu 20:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Reply to Osgoodelawer. You have condemned every "keep vote"as an emotional vote ?? May i kindly asked you why ?? All the keep voters and merge voters gave valid reasons and you call them emotional voters ?? Yu have also stated not all the delete voters were emotional ??!! Yes, since only 2 out of 6 were caught for "sockpuppeting" you mat be technically right.But haven't you noticed who actually voted for the deletion?? , a couple of LTTE sympathizers and of course, you .So all the delete votes were either emotional or biased(I have shown your double standard regarding this issue).Hence according to your logic, shouldn't we ignore the "delete" vote completely ??!!. Actually there were few others flaws in your comment,and for the benefit of all i have listed them below.

1 All the keeps were emotional and NOt all the deletions were emotional

*answer per above

2 iwazaki is emotional because he's giving links to dead people

I was giving evidences !! The photos are of dead people, because they were "massacred" by LTTE.This is nothing about being emotional. This is all about being encyclopedic..I gave the evidences to back up our claims , and you ??? absolutely nothing ! And did you noticed ,there was even a BBC link in the article !! Well, you were hasty in making your decision ,and i supposed you didn't even bother to read that.

3 GOSL article is not neutral

This is the core of your argument.And this comment alone is overwhelmingly WP:POV ..AND a classic"Logical fallacy". People of Sri Lanka are victims here and these are not even combat incidents.These are cold blooded murders of innocent people and any government of the world has right to complain about it.Totally WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Except calling it unreliable, you have done no effort to examine the details written in the letter nor your have questioned any single incident there.Unless you cant find any contradictions in the letter, all your claims would become rather pointles

4 GOSL is unreliable but others aren't

Just because GOSL is engaged in a war against LTTE, we cant dismiss every single claim made by the GOSL.We should take, every case carefully and analyze it thoroughly before making any conclusions.This is how a encyclopedia works !! Encyclopedia is not a place where you can have a worst case "Ad Hominem Tu Quoque". If i use your logic or i would say fallacy, then i or anyone can dismiss almost everything !! There wont be a wikipedia anymore !!

5 merges are weak delete votes

This is a hypothetical assumption !! I just went through it, and none of them said any thing like that all !! Even one merger said, "The incidents I checked seem to have a reliable source" . So the mergers were in fact weak keeps .And you seemed to,once again, engaged in a mysterious logic.i don't know what do you mean by "scream loudly".were you referring tothis. An excellent example of wasting server space for "cheap political attacks on a democratic nation" .

And finally, i request all the relevant administrators to revert this decision as it is not only flawed but also self-contradictory. Please bear in mind that no one has ever questioned any of the stated incidents.So there is no question that these incidents did occur and LTTE had a hand on it.Hence the decision to delete is flawed !thank you--Iwazaki 04:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I tire of your inability to understand Wikipedia policy and proper logic (your pretty Latin doesn't get you anywhere). The article is clearly unencyclopedic for so many different reasons. Even if all the votes were for keep, it still had to be deleted. An RfC that included only those well-versed in Wikipedia policy and who weren't emotionally connected to the topic on either side would clearly have found for deletion. Does that mean I think other pro-LTTE articles should not also be deleted? Absolutely not. Both the GoSL and the LTTE (and its sympathizers) are both unreliable sources--whether I give you examples or not aside. Some sources clearly are too close to the issue to be trusted. I understand you do not believe this and think every statement from the GoSL is reliable until proved not. You, however, are wrong. And that's simply that. But I have other things to deal with on Wikipedia. I'm not a one-issue man like you, and so I bow out of this discussion. Wikipedia policies will prevail regardless of whether we continue to argue the same points over and over. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I just need to know why you thought the AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE applied to Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Almost all people who voted for deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE did so on the grounds that many incidents are sourced from the Sri Lankan government. However at Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) almost all the incidents are sourced from Amnesty, BBC, CNN etc:- Dutugemunu 13:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Almost all people who voted for deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE did so on the grounds that many incidents are sourced from the Sri Lankan government." - not true. "all the incidents are sourced from Amnesty, BBC, CNN etc" - also untrue. Proto::type 13:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I said "almost all the incidents are sourced from Amnesty, BBC, CNN etc". I meant sources other than the Sri lankan government were mainly used for Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I remember that at least 3 (possibly 4) of the users who voted for deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE did so on the grounds that many incidents are sourced from the Sri Lankan government. So the votes for the AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTEcannot be used to delete Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because their justifcation for deletion does not apply to Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). If you restore the AFD I can give you and exact count of those who wanted to merge and those who wanted to delete and why tehy wanted to delete. Dutugemunu 13:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn The two reasons given for deletion by the closing admin are both incorrect. 1st he states, that there was a consensus for deletion, which is not true considering the final votes were Delete 5 (disregarding the nominator, who himself was a sockpuppet), Keep 9 and Merge 3. I don't see a consensus there, even if the votes of Melissahutchison (talk · contribs) and LovesEverybody (talk · contribs) who have only voted on AFDs are disregarded. Considering the merge vote also as votes to delete is, as far as I know, not suggested anywhere in Wikipedia policy. 2nd he states his main reason for deletion was that the article was a "collection of external links". That is absolutely not correct. The only external links in the article were the citations. I believe he made a grave error there.

Also note the editor who nominated this article for deletion Elalan, is actually a himself a proven sockpuppet of User:Trincomanb who also voted for deletion, and Elalan has subsequently been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia for "abusive sock-puppetry". No other editor who voted on this AFD has been proven as a sockpuppet or even had a case started against them. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 04:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)